A motorist who killed an experienced club cyclist after striking her from behind while speeding has been sentenced to 10 months in prison – after initially claiming that he couldn’t see the rider, who was wearing hi-vis and using bike lights at the time, due to oncoming headlights.
Mary Emerson-Reed, one of Cycling UK’s 100 Women in Cycling for 2023, was riding home from a folk festival with a friend on the B3081 between Tollard Royal and Shaftesbury, at around 11pm on 23 June 2023, when she was hit by driver Alan Morris.
The 63-year-old, a ride leader for Gillingham Wheelers cycling club and a member of Blackmore Vale Cycling Club, and her friend were both wearing hi-vis jerseys and riding bikes with lights at the time of the collision.
But when questioned by police, 75-year-old Morris claimed to have been unable to see the two cyclists due to the lights of a car coming from the opposite direction.
Forensic enquiries carried out in the wake of the collision, however, demonstrated that Mary and her friend should have been visible from a distance of at least 200 metres, due to the lights on both bikes. Morris was also found to have been driving at 69mph in a 60mph zone when he fatally struck the cyclist.
He eventually pleaded guilty to causing death by careless driving, and earlier this month was sentenced to 10 months in prison. The 75-year-old was also disqualified from driving for 29 months, after which he will be required to pass an extended competence test, and ordered to pay a surcharge of £187.
Following the sentencing, Alex Collins, a member of Wiltshire Police’s Serious Collision Investigation Team, said there was “no excuse” for the motorist’s driving.
“This is a tragic incident and our thoughts remain with Mary’s family during this undoubtedly traumatic time for them,” Collins said.
“It has been a lengthy process to get to this point, with numerous complex enquiries needing to be completed, including a reconstruction of the incident. I’d like to thank them for their patience and I hope this sentence can bring an element of closure.
“There can be no excuse for Morris’s driving. Mary and her friend had their bicycle lights illuminated and they were correctly wearing high visibility, reflective clothing given the late hour.
“Morris had ample opportunity to see Mary and failed to do so, colliding with her and sadly causing fatal injuries.
“Careless driving is one of the fatal five driving offences – the five offences most likely to lead to serious injury or death. This sad case highlights the importance of giving your full attention to the road, no matter the hour.”
Just months after her death, Mary was named by Cycling UK as a Community Champion, as part of the charity’s 100 Women in Cycling list, reflecting her contributions as a ride leader for Gillingham Wheelers and as treasurer of Blackmore Vale Cycling Club.
In a tribute published this week, Mary’s family said: “Mary was a keen and experienced cyclist who had cycled all her life.
“She toured widely on her bike, across Europe to Syria and back, and in one year managed to notch up 10,000 miles. She was a competent and sympathetic ride leader, known for her enthusiasm and expertise.
“She was killed riding home from the Ashmore Filly Loo, a folk festival celebrating Midsummer’s Day, which reflects Mary’s other great passion as a folk musician. She played the folk fiddle, in addition to which she was a first violinist in the Shaftesbury Symphony Orchestra.
“An active member of the Shaftesbury community, as a volunteer gardener at Stourhead and as a member of the Hill Top Litter Pickers, a local volunteer group, Mary is much missed by family, friends and colleagues.”
At the time of her death in 2023, Gillingham Wheelers said: “Mary was a long-standing member of the Gillingham Wheelers who was always happy to help out at our various events.
“Anyone who has taken part in our time trials or road races will have benefitted from Mary’s generosity over many years.
“Mary loved riding her bike, and loved her music too. She was regularly spotted riding Robbie, Ruby, and Candy on the roads of Dorset, Wiltshire, and Somerset, as well as guiding members around Mallorca where she earnt the nick-name Mary Maps.
“Quite simply Mary was the backbone of our club and taught many of us how to ride correctly, never pulled any punches when members broke cycling rules and will be sorely missed.”
-1024x680.jpg "“Clear anti-cyclist bias”: Lawsuit filed against Toronto police after cop doored cyclist… before ticketing rider over incident")
37 thoughts on “Speeding motorist jailed for 10 months for killing cyclist claimed he couldn’t see hi-vis-wearing rider due to oncoming headlights – but police say “no excuse” for pensioner’s driving”
I’ll be riding Critical Mass
I’ll be riding Critical Mass for you tomorrow Mary, RIP.
F*#k the justice system of this country, what an absolute s#!tshow.
The thing is, and I’m sure a
The thing is, and I’m sure a lot of people here have similar experiences, is that we have been wearing high vis, multiple lights, and people still drive into us, and yet the police do in fact buy the excuse that we weren’t properly visible because of road spray, or oncoming headlights, or other nonsense. The driver is then free to drive off, unpunished. Obviously the 27 month driving ban is a bit of a joke, but the police could have easily bought the excuse.
Minor nitpick. Dont confuse
Minor nitpick. Dont confuse the Cops with the CPS. In this case its the CPS that bottled out and charged for Careless instead of Dangerous driving, presumably out of consideration for the drivers age. Whereas there’s a shoulder shrug for Mary’s lost years.
Bottled it or played the
Bottled it or played the percentages to get a conviction? Would a jury have convicted this guy on a death by dangerous driving charge ? Probably not.
It’s a callous way to dispatch justice, but until we convince the CPS to do better, as Hirsute says it should be by default a driving examiner is called as an expert witness to tell the court what is dangerous driving, not left to the jury to make up excuses for the driver
yet the police do in fact buy
yet the police do in fact buy the excuse that we weren’t properly visible because of road spray, or oncoming headlights, or other nonsense
Indeed! The start of my ceaseless battle with Lancashire Constabulary began with me being hit while stationary, waiting to leave Sainsbury’s, by a Freelander cutting the corner by a lot when turning right off the main road and travelling on the wrong side of the road. The police accepted that he hadn’t seen my flashing helmet light and handlebar light because it was dark and raining and there were lights coming from the store-front behind me and decided it was ‘only a momentary loss of concentration’. They weren’t bothered about him being on the wrong side of the road. They will lean over backwards to accept an excuse for hitting a cyclist!
Quote:
I hope that the 75-year-old doesn’t even consider reapplying for a driving licence…
Have to leave open the
Have to leave open the possibility of rehabilitation…
Whilst I would have preferred
Whilst I would have preferred a longer/lifetime driving ban, as due to the age a longer prison sentence was not considered…
I can only hope that after 29 months the driver will be less inclined to want to re-apply for a licence.
Or would be unable to pass anyway due to age related physical deterioration.
Not forgetting insurance and wondering if any insurer would consider covering an older driver with such a conviction at an affordable £ rate.
Past a cetain age (60 maybe?)
Past a cetain age (60 maybe?) ALL driver should be retested regularly. Not just granted a licenses because they have not had any tickets! Not just a written test, but vision and driving tests! My father drove competently until he was about 85 (he lived to 97!), however, my mother had to give it up when she was about 62. We all know those who should NEVER be behind the wheel no matter their age!
And have to under a mandatory
And have to under a mandatory eye test.
I quite agree. I’m 62 now and
I quite agree. I’m 62 now and drive very little, largely because I just don’t enjoy it. I find it stressful and unpleasant. The longest drive I do each year is to the ferry port, to get me and my bike to the tour start point.
One thing I am careful to do on a regular basis is to ensure that I can still read a numberplate at 20 metres. So far, so good.
It is about time the law was
It is about time the law was aligned with the proposed law for cyclists. Abandon the separation between careless/dangerous driving, and have just one charge of causing death or serious injury by negligent driving. Perhaps this will help the CPS untangle their knickers!
“by negligent driving”
“by negligent driving”
Don’t think that introducing another ambiguous phrase is going to help the CPS.
What is really required has been suggested on here before by others; that a senior driving examiner would give expert witness that the standard of driving was careless, dangerous, negligent with clear reasoning, then juries might pass the correct verdict.
Mr Anderson wrote:
The proposed new law for cyclists retains the distinction, it provides for charges of death by dangerous cycling and death by careless cycling.
As driving at 69mph in a
As driving at 69mph in a 60mph zone isn’t dangerous, it’s hard to see what we as cyclists could do, to be accused of dangerous cycling.
rogerwb wrote:
According to the media, it’s “dangerous” the moment that we are riding the bike
I bet if Mary hadn’t been
I bet if Mary hadn’t been wearing hi-viz, that would have been claimed to be the reason she was killed.
Or the hi viz blended in
Or the hi viz blended in
https://road.cc/content/news/hi-vis-jacket-blended-trees-277019
Hirsute wrote:
Schrodinger’s High Vis – simultaneously visible yet invisible. High visbility yet camoflage.
“wearing high visibility,
“wearing high visibility, reflective clothing given the late hour“
Irrelevant.
Not really – it shows up the
Not really – it shows up the driver’s claims not to have seen her, as being disingenuous…
(edit) Like Steve K has said below
Benthic wrote:
What I found particularly repellent about that comment, as noted elsewhere, is the fact that the officer said they were “correctly” wearing high viz, which implies that anyone who is involved in a similar accident and was not wearing high viz, even if they had lights on, was not correctly attired and so a contributor to their injuries. Unless wearing hi viz is made a legal requirement for cyclists during the hours of darkness then neither its presence nor its absence should, as you correctly say, have any relevance and certainly its absence should not be regarded as any form of mitigation for the guilty driver.
Exactly.
Exactly.
Rendel Harris wrote:
I agree, the wearing of hi viz is not a legal requirement so it should not affect the outcome of the court case.
It may be used when the compensation claim is considered by the insurance companies as this is what the highway code is used for as I understand it.
If they are going to take it into account in the court case then they should start prosecuting any driver who passes a cyclist at less than 1.5m.
If they are going to take it
If they are going to take it into account in the court case then they should start prosecuting any driver who passes a cyclist at less than 1.5m
Sorry- couldn’t resist it! Agreed- get the b******s in the Slammer!
Blimey, that’s walking pace,
Blimey, that’s walking pace, so should be 2m !!
In the distance, beyond that
In the distance, beyond that church tower, is the Lake District. They’re called hills and we have them here
We have hills in Essex !
We have hills in Essex !
My favourite is burnt dick hill TL 9898 3337
Bungle_52 wrote:
It shouldn’t be. It’s in the HC as ‘you may choose to do this to enhance your own safety’ – that doesn’t mean that if you don’t do so you in some way share in the responsibility if you’re injured through someone else’s dangerous behaviour. In the same way that you may choose to wear a hard hat while walking along the street, but choosing not to do so doesn’t make you partly liable if someone carelessly or recklessly drops something off of scaffolding onto your head.
I started replying to say
I started replying to say that hi-viz is not a MUST, but is a ‘should’ in the Highway Code and so (rightly or wrongly) its absence could be used to determine liability. But then I realised it’s neither. It used to be a should, but one of the HWC changes in 2022 arguably downgraded it:
WAS: You should wear… light coloured or fluorescent clothing which helps other road users to see you in daylight and poor light; reflective clothing and/or accessories… in the dark.
NOW: Light-coloured or fluorescent clothing can help other road users to see you in daylight and poor light, while reflective clothing and/or accessories… can increase your visibility in the dark.
In practice I suspect this will be still be interpreted as a should – but the fact that it doesn’t say so (while that language is still used in other sentences of the same rule – e.g. you should wear a helmet) suggests the drafters intended them to be treated differently.
Apologies if everyone else already knew all this; I’d forgotten the change. As you were.
quiff wrote:
I certainly didn’t and it’s useful to know, cheers.
I don’t drive at night
I don’t drive at night because of the dazzling effect of car headlights, my optician says cataracts are starting to develop.
No problems in daylight but I wonder whether this driver has the same condition.
Anyone heard from Briggs in
Anyone heard from Briggs on this?
No thought not…..
If I’m cycling and I can’t
If I’m cycling and I can’t see clearly ahead due to blinding headlights on the other carriageway, I slow down until my sight is unimpeded. If only motorists all did the same…
Terrible that such a positive
Terrible that such a positive force in the cycling community is killed by a careless idiot who then had to be backed into a corner to admit his guilt. RIP Mary – it could have been any of us.
A mandatory eye tests should
A mandatory eye tests should be required for the over 70s when renewing their driving licence. And they should have restrictions for driving at night, if their eyesight doesn’t meet a certain level.
Of course the Daily Mail and Telegraph, and the Tories would be up in arms about this being put in place, but unsafe drivers need cracking down on.
I’d also like to see judges no longer taking account of a driver’s mealy-mouthed “I need my car for work” excuse when they’ve racked up point after point after point and haven’t been banned. Hit the points limit should equal a minimum 6-month ban. No ifs, no buts.
It is unbelievable that you
It is unbelievable that you can self-certify to renew your driving licence when it expires at age 70. Even in Greece (not a country noted for its rigorous road safety) to continue driving after 70, it’s a physical and a retake of the driving test.